TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Finality and Langley
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Finality and Langley Login/Join 
Member
posted
Langley, 833 S.W.2d 141 says that a conviction becomes "unfinal" under 12.42 once further execution of a sentence is suspended (by means other than parole). I believe this holding applies to a release pursuant to art. 42.12 sec. 6 (from Boot Camp) as well.

So, here are my facts, 1995 sentence for 10 years (but sent to boot camp). April, 1997 (after release from boot camp) commits second felony offense. August, 1997, community supervision for first offense is revoked. January, 1998 convicted for the April, 1997 offense. Anyone think defendant's 2007 offense is subject to enhancement under 12.42(d)? Would it make a difference if a motion to revoke was filed and pending before April, 1997? I really hope 12.42 is corrected sometime.
 
Posts: 2386 | Registered: February 07, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
First offense is not final before second offense is committed. Therefore he is not subject to enhancement under 12.42(d). When the MTR is filed would not matter if he committed the new offense before the second offense is made final (again) by revocation to the pen. What matters is when he was revoked to the pen vis a vis the date of the new offense.

12.42 frustrates me because the construction of (d) has been applied to different language in the other provisions. Moreover, the strict construction of (d) was in large part due, I figure, to the fact that habitual in the old days meant life, not 25 to life.

The Lizard Man is innocent!
 
Posts: 2138 | Location: McKinney, Texas, USA | Registered: February 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

TDCAA    TDCAA Community  Hop To Forum Categories  Criminal    Finality and Langley

© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.